At his blog, Legal Insurrection, Cornell law professor William Jacobson has an even-handed analysis of today’s decision by the state Supreme Court of California upholding Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage by defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. (See here for the decision.) Prof. Jacobson writes, “The Court rejected the notion that the People, through Constitutional amendment, could not restrict the right to marry,” and quotes material that in essence says, “Homosexuals can have civil unions that are separate but equal to marriage, so we find that heterosexuals can reserve the word ‘marriage’ for themselves and define it to describe only their legal unions.”

Prof. Jacobson points out that this sends the matter back to the political arena where lesbians and gays must persuade the majority of Californians to repeal Prop. 8 if they want the word “marriage” to include same-sex civil unions.

Gay Patriot — specifically Gay Patriot West, who lives in California — approves of the decision and hopes that lesbians and gays who are disappointed will find ways to be civil toward the opponents of their equality to create grounds for persuading them to support marriage equality in the future. I am troubled by the court’s support of majority rule in limiting equality for minorities, but I agree we must be civil about it.

I don’t know what the response of the National Organization for Marriage is to the decision, but on their Web site, here’s is one of the talking points they recommend for defeating marriage equality for same-sex couples:

Language to avoid at all costs: ‘Ban same-sex marriage.’ Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM [same-sex marriage]. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. [Emphasis mine.] Don’t use it. Say we’re against ‘redefining marriage’ or in favor or ‘marriage as the union of husband and wife’ NEVER ‘banning same-sex marriage.’

Screen shot from the "Marriage Talking Points" page of the Web site for the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage equality.

The way I read this is that NOM and its allies know they can speak in code to defeat same-sex marriage AND civil unions and that they use this code-speak to win over people who would never otherwise deny equality to homosexuals. But their true intention is expressed in their words, ” ‘Ban same-sex marriage.’ Our base loves this wording.” They love it because that’s what they want to do. So I expect that they will not rest with their success on Prop. 8, but will use it as leverage for repealing same-sex civil unions.

I’ve read the statistic that 85 percent of blacks voted in favor of Prop. 8 in order to defeat same-sex marriage. It occurs to me that black opposition to same-sex marriage is a safe expression of an intense and virulent anti-white racism because the majority of people who are openly lesbian or gay are white. I suspect this anti-white/anti-gay hatred — if I am correct and it exists and is widespread — is founded in Black Liberation Theology. But whatever foundation it has, homosexuals are the safe white people to hate and the minority that can safely be denied equality. No good is going to come of either of those things.

What I hope that the organizations fighting for civil rights for homosexuals will do to win the hearts and minds of a majority of the electorate to vote in favor of equality for lesbians and gays is to work hard to make it safe for more people to come out to their families, friends, colleagues and church congregations. That will make it difficult-to-impossible to demonize us. And when people find out that people they already know and respect or care about — or who are their children or other relatives — are gay or lesbian, the case for denying us equality starts to melt away.

Autographed Letter Signed,

CYNTHIA YOCKEY

We thank and welcome Cynthia Yockey as an ALS guest commentator. You can find more of her writings at her blog: A Newly Conservative Lesbian

I am a 55-year-old lesbian and over the course of the presidential campaign in 2008, my political views transformed from those of a lifelong liberal, Democrat and global warming believer to those of a fiscal conservative who rejects theories of anthropogenic climate change because we are so totally NOT more influential on the climate than the sun, sunspots, the ocean and ocean currents. (Ever the heretic wherever I go, even as a liberal, I wanted a nuclear power plant on every block, due to my love of cheap electricity and my aversion to freezing in the dark, so no change there.)

When I learned in November 2008 that Barack Obama had announced his intention to purge the Democratic party of everyone with common sense centrists, and because I’m not wishy-washy because I did not want to register as independent or undecided — plus I have had bitter experiences at the hands of liberal fascists when I tried to get them to observe their stated principles and figured a change of scene would do me good — I decided to try my fortunes among Republicans and registered as a Republican in December 2008.

I feel better already.

I am more than a little embarrassed that my liberal views were transformed into conservative ones by repeated encounters with facts and math. It’s not that I wasn’t interested in politics, I was. I grew up reading newspapers and news magazines and watching Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid! I read the columns of that prissy adulterous anti-gay hypocrite and gasbag respected conservative George Will. I was a small town newspaper reporter covering politics for the Harford Democrat from 1980 to 1982!

However, since all of my friends except Cuban Diva BFF are liberal Democrats, I knew I had to research my new point of view. I spent over 100 hours online researching Obama, Black Liberation Theology, global warming/climate change, liberalism and conservatism.

I finally saw that there is a tipping point in the amount of taxes you have to pay to support the federal, state and local governments after which you have lost ability to support yourself and your family, to create and grow your business as an entrepreneur, and the right to use your own money for yourself and the causes YOU want supported, which often are causes that never would be supported by government.

That was the moment I accepted fiscal conservatism as my personal lord and savior. - Cynthia Yockey

President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.
If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama’s decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

A formal announcement was expected at midmorning.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy—the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor’s confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

Sotomayor is a self-described “Newyorkrican” who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

It is no surprise that Obama chose a woman and I am pleased with that but what she stands for is unknown to me besides hearing that she is extremely liberal. Frankly, I prefer the Supreme Court to have a bipartisan feel, meaning a mixture of both conservatives and liberals. Their job is to uphold the law according to the constitution. If appointed, I would see her as just another liberal replacement for Souter. Congratulations to Sonia Sotomayor, good luck during confirmation.

Here is Karl Rove saying a few things about Sotomayor seems as though conservatives will be against her. I will look into this later. I do agree with conservatives that Obama’s “empathy” statement is somewhat troublesome . “Empathy” really has nothing to do with law or logic.

There was also much fodder made about her statements in this video. Sotomayor’s “We don’t make law” statement raised a few eyebrows.